Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Cameron is not only redefining marriage, he is constricting conservatism

His Grace has received more criticism, insults, threats and general unpleasantness on this matter than any other. On 'gay marriage', he has been informed that he is 'obsessed' by the issue (they have discovered 10 or 15 posts by His Grace on the matter - out of more than 2000...) and so, they conclude, he is probably a closet homosexual himself. It appears that only homosexuals may discuss homosexuality and associated matters, and if anyone else should dare do so (namely, a heterosexual), they are actually revealing their true latent sexual desire.

Thankfully, not all gays and lesbians are of the homosexualist-gaystapo-extremist variety: the vast majority simply want to live and let live, preferring to get on with their careers, love friends and family, decorate the home, plan a holiday and worship their god. This is the normal everyday stuff of a mundane life. Like the rest of civil society, they don't seek to impose anything upon anyone or to disturb the natural social order. They are not driven to express a personal identity primarily in terms of genital function: they are more rounded, tolerant and benevolent than those who seek to bully, harass and censor all reasonable and rational debate on the issue.

As the Government today announces its response to the public 'consultation' on same-sex marriage (as if the results weren't foregone), it is interesting to observe how it is not only 'marriage' which is being redefined, but conservatism itself. So much so that those who oppose the move (which includes about 40 per cent of the Parliamentary Party) must be asking themselves if they are actually any longer conservative at all.

The problem is the increasingly widespread use of the paternalistic 'should' and 'ought'.

The Prime Minister announced two years ago that he is introducing the reform 'because I'm a Conservative'. Tim Montgomerie is of the view that 'Conservatives should embrace gay marriage', and Nick Herbert MP is of the view that 'Conservatives who believe in marriage should feel this most strongly'. There are many other prominent Tories who frame the debate in the imperative terms of duty and obligation to the core philosophy.

Stewart Jackson MP isn't the only one to find such an approach 'arrogant' and 'disingenuous'. Mark Pritchard MP observes: “The Bill is likely to alienate the Tory grassroots, natural Conservative voters, and multiple faith communities. Number 10 is out of touch with mainstream public opinion and needs to shelve it.”

The Church of England has responded with uncharacteristic precision, and the Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference remains firmly opposed to the Government’s plans. And yesterday in Parliament, Rehman Chishti MP, the son of an imam, asked the Equalities Minister what Muslims had said to the Government during its consultation. Mrs Miller said they had voiced ‘some concern’.

Are all these opposing voices fundamentally unconservative, or are they simply anti-Conservative? Is it the top-down Tory instinct to talk in terms of 'should', while the bottom-up Whiggish approach is one of natural questioning and dissent?

The reality is that under David Cameron, Conservatism has ceased to be a broad church after the fashion of its conciliar Anglican heritage: it has become more centralised, elitist and authoritarian, demanding uncompromising adherence to the modernist orthodoxy of equality and rights. Those who view gay marriage as an unconservative revolution rather than a natural evolution are, as Tim Montgomerie says, 'angry voices' which are 'out of touch with the country'. Which is a little odd, because His Grace isn't remotely angry. But such simple emotional judgmentalism is contiguous with the patronising 'should' and 'ought'. They tell us what we must believe, and then direct us in our feelings.

Might it simply be that the dissenting voices care more about the future electoral prospects of the Conservative Party than this absurdly over-prioritised reform, which is causing more dissent and division than anything in the party's history bar Europe? Is it not a psephological fact that natural conservatives are leaving the Conservative Party in droves over this issue, and are less likely to vote for them in 2015 because of it? However morally right or ethically justifiable this reform may be, it is undoubtedly and undeniably terrible politics.

His Grace remains a conservative... he thinks. And he will be mocked, jeered, insulted, reviled and ultimately excommunicated, simply because this 'should' and 'ought' cannot, in conscience, be obeyed.

149 Comments:

I'm off to my first UKIP Christmas lunch today and I have already spoken with one of the patrons of UKIP "Christian Warriors" over the weekend. This is despite my husband having been a Conservative District Councillor, my mother in law being a lifetime fundraiser for the Conservative party, my husband's aunt being Honorary Life President of a neighbouring constituency and my husband's uncle having been Conservative Party Agent.

Very good post and an excellent summary of the evolution of the 'Conservative' party into a hybrid socal/cultural Marxism.

One reason why natural conservatives, Christian or otherwise find Cameron's proposals so offensive, apart from the evident hypocrisy of his motives for electoral success rather than any expressed principle, is quite simply that he has no mandate to go ahead.

It is rightly called a redefinition of marriage, for if passed into law it would introduce both a religious and a cultural change which is unprecedented.It would make marriage something it has NEVER been in our history and culture, and which is alien to every other culture and religion past and present. All on the mere whim of one man, (or maybe two!) and his political ambitions to stay in power at any cost. "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with You, which frames mischief by a law?

Your Grace,You most certainly are conservative but the Conservative Party is not.Does your Grace think that the most concerning aspect of SSM for the general public is the selfish concern over their redefining of civil naming of Husband/Wife to Partners 1/2.(I'm not sure that many even realise this) Or are they more concerned with the concept being unnatural and that children will without doubt be taught that SSM is natural.I wrote to my MP Eric Pickles and said that this is now Orwellian speak that the Government is going to call a for a spade and a spade a fork for there is no equality between SSM and Male/Female marriage. They are as different as chalk and cheese, or a fork and a spade.The 100 conservative MP's will be out voted. However, if they resign the whip, the Government would fall. Which would Cameron sooner have? An appeased gay lobby or remain in power.

Thank again for an excellent post, articulating so well what so many of us feel / believe, except "psephological" is a new word for me!

Is there anything that can be done to change Mr Cameron's mind? Is there any way this barking mad policy can be shelved?

Or is this from the Lord as per Isaiah 29:9-10,

"Astonish yourselves and be astonished; blind yourselves and be blind! Be drunk, but not with wine; stagger, but not with strong drink! For the LORD has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, and covered your heads."

Democracy is dead. We all know it. The "consultation" over SSM is symptomatic of the whole, nauseatingly corrupt & contemptuous attitude of the ruling elite.

Whether it's the EU, wars, SSM, banking, trade, the environment ... they do whatever the hell they like because they believe that people will simply vote them in again next time (largely because of the blind tribalism of the sort you yourself advocate Cranmer).

But the reality is it doesn't matter which one you vote in next time, because they all present the same content in different coloured wrappers. MP's are merely voting fodder for their political masters - the unknown, unaccountable autocrats in the EU.

They think growing numbers of us who don't vote is because we don't care. But we don't vote because we know there is no choice. "Do you want to be kicked in the balls with the left foot or the right foot or with a different implement altogether?" is not democracy.

Still, those of us who know scripture can take comfort in the fact that Jesus said, "When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." These things should spur the Church to greater evangelistic effort, but given some of the recent meetings I've had trying to spur churches to mission, they'll still rather talk about the flower rota.

A fine post, Your Grace, and your thoughts will be shared by many who now see the Conservative Party as both alien and hostile to their values and beliefs.

We live in a period of profound moral change. What one might call the Christian settlement that survived the Reformation and the Enlightenment to wax mightily in the 19th century has now been eclipsed. The Human Rights ethos, derived in part from Marxism, has captured the political elite and having been converted, they are now aggressively proselytising their beliefs. Even dear old John Major has been sucked in, presumably after being over-whelmed by a torrent of lies in a private briefing with Dave.

It seems that across Europe and North America the political elite has decided to abolish organised religion and enforce a completely secular society that is also gender-neutral in construct.

But what seems to be lacking is a snappy name to describe this moral revolution. Endarkenment? Moral Rearmament? Progressive Ascendancy? The Dis-Establishment?

I share your analysis and concerns completely. I have written to Messrs Cameron (three times), Gove and Michael Ellis (my MP) and told them all that I will not be voting Conservative at the next election if this goes through. Are they mad?

Rebel Saint.Keep pushing & praying for mission & evangelism. Elijah was discouraged to the point of giving up until God told him the true situation.Most of the great revivals follow a time of falling away & moral laxity.

At the next election, I will be voting against the Conservatives, not in spite of being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative

If these people are representative (and the polls suggest they are) and they all stay at home or vote UKIP, Divine-Right-Dave will have succeeded not just in redefining Conservatism but in destroying it.

When a mother drowns her two children because she places greater value on her new boyfriend, you should feel anger. This is evidence of a properly formed conscience. When a father (oh so modern he, and a university professor, of course) has a consensual sexual relationship with his 24 year-old daughter, you should feel revulsion. This is evidence of a properly formed conscience. There is no problem will telling people how they should feel. The problem is the concept of morality that informs and motivates the feelings. If the moral foundation is wrong, the feelings will be wrong as well.

And about democracy, or what passes for democracy, we keep hearing that MP's have a free vote and will do so in "accordance with their OWN conscience".

Hang on, silly me thought that my MP represented the views of his constituents. Clearly in our new democracy we elect an MP because we approve of their personal thoughts.

To once again reiterate, none of the parties in this Parliament had an intention in their manifestos to redefine marriage so they are acting outside of their mandate. Where is the protection of the courts against such behaviour?

I was going to visit a pantomime this Christmas, but I think that watching the government tie itself in knots with this inequitable piece of legislation over an inequality that does not exist will be pantomime enough. What a farce!

Conservatism was MEANT to be democratic too. A commitment to introduce gay marriage was not on their manifesto. It's a massive issue, it upends society, this isn't some trivial afterthought. For a measure of this weight to be introduced, the people must be consulted - we were not. we haven't had a chance to vote against this, because it wasn't proposed. And even the consultation has been ignored.

I'll view any law to introduce this, and any marriages resulting, as illegitimate.

One Tory MP was asking in the house why David Cameron seems 'hell bent' on ramming this unwanted and unneccesary change through when what people REALLY want is an in/out referendum on Europe.

'Hell bent' seems a particularly appropriate form of words.

The UKIP position is a model of moderation, fully accepting same sex civil partnerships as a matter of live and let live tolerance in a plural society, yet opposing a re-definition of marriage as it is (A) completely unneccessary, (B) will interfere with the freedom of religion of those who don't want it in church, and (C) as it will lead to the disestablishment of church and crown.

I suspect it is the latter reason why the Tatchellites are pushing it. I just wish they'd be more honest about this. I bet most people who say they want gay 'marriage' donlt want to lose the moanrchy or established church, yet 'that's what'll 'appen!'

As to David Cameron's bizzarre insistence on alienating Conservatove grass roots over something entirely unneccessary that directly affects way fewer than 1% of the population, I will continue to believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. The English libel laws prevent me from saying more. Perhaps something to do with some information that someone who was at Oxford may or may not release to the public realm depending on certain favours....who can tell?

"I'll view any law to introduce this, and any marriages resulting, as illegitimate."

Quite.

There is no mandate for this and frankly I cannot see any mandate unless there is a referendum. Husbands and wives have signed documents and made public oaths entering into the institution of marriage. The institution cannot justly be redefined until they (at least) have been consulted.

All this has come about because the hierarchy of the British Church has lost sight of Biblical teaching. It chooses which bits of the Bible it will believe and which bits it will throw into the dustbin. It is all theology without faith!

The Bible teaches us thatFor this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: BUT I SPEAK CONCERNING CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. (Ephesians 5:31-32.)

There is a very real difference between Jesus and His Church. This difference is supposed to be reflected in the marriages (not marriage service) of human beings. How can two of the same gender ever reflect this difference?

If the Church does not believe what God says, then it has no one to blame but itself if God leaves it to its own devices and allows this terrible change to go through.

your Grace ambling Steve Apple seed just said it all at the end of his bit."English libel laws prevent me from saying more. Perhaps something to do with some information that someone who was at Oxford may or may not release to the public realm depending on certain favours....who can tell?" well can you give a explanation to Cameron's suicide pact with the Liberals? UKIP here i come.

Nothing but despair. All politics is lost & broken. There is no representation. No-one to turn to. Only the Church stands as a rock, against which the Gates of Hell remain useless. Is there any point in public engagement?

Nothing but despair. All politics is lost & broken. There is no representation. No-one to turn to. Only the Church stands as a rock, against which the Gates of Hell remain useless. Is there any point in public engagement?

His Grace. It appears that only homosexuals may discuss homosexuality and associated matters, and if anyone else should dare do so (namely, a heterosexual), they are actually revealing their true latent sexual desire.

Isn’t that God’s truth. A fellow gets that on this site from one contributor. But the Inspector can go further. Take too much interest in their gay business and they will invite you to join in the fun. Fortunately, even as a schoolboy one was wise to their siren methods and recruiting activities. And so with numbers and a great deal in common, a sub group in society is formed, but why remain a sub group when with enough pestering, you can run the show, as we are seeing with gay marriage.

This is all terribly reminiscent of the Euro stance of the party. How pleased we were that Cameron was giving us a cast iron promise on an in /out vote. Masterly stroke thought this man, that will nip the growing popularity of UKIP. UKIP at the time being an unnecessary diversion, and not a force so strong as to split the centre right vote. How times have changed. While UKIP upheld its values, the conservatives have gone native and naked.

So after the EU vote disgrace, will what’s left of conservatism in the Conservative party survive gay marriage ? Unlikely, for once you start on the road to concession, the others start queuing up for their bit. The muslims for example. What will Cameron say to us when they get around to asking (…demanding ?...) that Sharia law be legally recognised and upheld in their community as part of British law. Will he be saying we should and ought to accommodate them ?

The government needn’t fall at all, but in return UKIP will be given a say in running things. And say number one is the abandonment of this tomfoolery bill. Just imagine the squeals from the liberal elite, and the curiosity generated from a previously disinterested Joe Public who don’t give one jot about gays but are rather more concerned on how to pay the winter bills. The Lib Dems would be mortified and not know what to do, other than to continue in government realising that as things stand, annihilation awaits them at the ballot !

These are the thoughts that make good dreams and then in the following days, the dreams can turn into reality…

There is ONE party that has its eyes on the future regarding retaining its core voters - The socialists. It’s to be a free vote for them. Looks like they prefer having those inner city seats heaving with Islamic types continuing to return a Labour MP rather than pander to a couple of thousand homosexual activists. How dashed disappointing for the gay movement and their sheep like supporters !

Your Grace,You have outlined the issue clearly and accurately. Both in terms of the re-definition of 'conservative' and in terms of the emotional attacks on those of us who hold to the several thousand years old view of what marriage actually is (why-ever we might do so, which changes from person to person).

What is worse, they have also refused to listen to the voices of half a million people because they protested through their own means, rather than by using the highly complicated and biased consultation document provided on the Government's website.

I am a Christian. I understand that to mean that I should seek to follow the teaching of Scripture, as it is clearly written. On this subject it is as clear as it can get. I object to my views being belittled as 'infantile' (the 'bishop' on Newsnight recently), or discarded because I haven't 'got with the programme' (Mr Cameron).

The only difference between Mr Cameron's attitude towards those who disagree with him, and that of his predecessor, Mr Brown, is that Mr Cameron has not yet been publicly caught out calling us bigots.

He, though, is the one seeking to change so many things that aren't broken, and in the doing he will finally break what little still remains unbroken in this country. Then people like myself will be expected to pick up the pieces, mend people, and heal society.

It will be beyond anyone by then - and God won't do it this time. The lampstand is going, Latimer's fire is going out, God help us all.

This issue is totally silly. The majority of gay people are quite happy with the civil partnership provision and the government has no mandate to meddle in religion or to redefine society. It sounds to me as though some trendies at Central Office have decides that the 'pink vote' is theirs for the taking.

I know of no one outside the Westminster bubble who sees this as anything approaching an essential issue. It is nothing to do with the 'atheist lobby' or 'secular lobby' they - simply don't exist in any democratic or meaningful sense.

There is no body politic that represents atheists, secularists, agnostics which are nothing other than labels to which individuals may or may not wish themselves to be associated.

This foolishness is a purely political excercise which will backfire spectacularly on Cameron and the Party for a long time to come.

If the Christian Churches have lost ground and influesnce, it's totally their own fault; but Scapegoating the non religious for their lack of credibility is their only pathetic response. It is the CoE and Rome who put out the welcome mat to political Islam and endorsed that it be afforded equal 'respect' and legitimacy.

They chose, instead of unpicking its so called holy writ and seeing its potential for the discrediting of its own doctrine to put up no resistance to it. This is from my experience, is what exposed traditional organised religion to lose its grip on the public imagination or if you prefer the rightness of 'faith' in on religion over another.

An excellent post from his Grace. I am trying to restrain my wife from joining UKIP until we see if they will really continue to oppose this measure in all sincerity. And we are lifelong conservatives!

There have been many developments today. One hopes that the Archbishop will give us his important take on what’s happened in his post tomorrow. If the Inspector could offer some advise, eminence, a particular leaning towards the ‘cast iron vote on the EU’ perhaps. Er, bugger, got that wrong. It is of course the ‘new improved cast iron reinforced concrete Bank of England sealed vault cast iron guaranteed promise’ that churches will not be compelled to ‘marry’ same sex people until the end of time.

Really, the politicians keep on feeding us this rot, and expect us to keep on swallowing it...

A law making a specific provision is easy to target for repeal - and I will make an easy prediction: this law will become the rallying point for future campaigning, and, in what must be the worst irony of this whole affair, it will prove to be the undoing of every bit of positioning that Cameron's attempted on this matter.

When one considers that this was not demanded, and could have been far more credibly resolved by opening civil partnerships to heterosexual couples without requiring special exception laws, I quite genuinely hope that Cameron will not long remain Prime Minister.

Gove and Boris were as signed up as the rest of them, though. And despite Naomi's hopeful attitude towards UKIP, I'll wager they'll prove no better.

Already the dialogue has changed. The Church of England is not 'protected' any more, it is 'banned from performing gay marriages'. Peter Tatchell is already threatening legal challenges - he says 'Denying these churches the right to opt in and host same-sex marriages undermines gay equality and religious freedom.’

David Cameron is a goner. Dead meat. This is going to get more and more complicated. I have noticed from reading various blogs that people are now beginning to question what impact gay marriage would actually have on society, whereas once they would have just accepted the 'equality' canard.

Once they find out (and they will) Cameron will find that they will not be so keen.

The only way the tories can survive this, in my view, is for them to dump Cameron, make all the sycophants, toadies and placemen eat their words, and drop the whole idea of gay marriage.

I don't see political influence and temporal power as being something to worry about losing or pursuing

Neither would I except for believing that this country was and would be of a more stable environment and future, without giving succour to Islam; which now it has put down roots, will seek to implement Sharia law at some level or other eventually. I think before too long there will be an Islamic political party emerging in Europe if not wholly in the UK. A UK version of a Muslim Brotherhood protoge that will pursue the 'democratic' route and make steady inroads in to our culture and way of life.

Fellows, thinking about the census, one believes that asinine as it would appear, there is more sense in putting the dog and cat down as members of the household than there is merit in the idea of two people of the same sex being ‘married’.

I shall be glad when this thing is finally in place and the religious find something else to angonize over, such as Sunday trading or wearing mixed fabrics or who ought to organise the Whitsun jumble sale next year.

Reading the BBC report it says:"In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex."

So a gay husband-husband can only commit adultery if one of the gay husbands finds a lesbian wife to do it with? Does this make any sense at all? Does the act of the gay husband breaking the marriage by finding another gay-boyfriend not count?

YG is right to be "obsessed" with this issue; it strikes to the heart of what we call society. I fear that the divide between us and DC's crew is unbridgeable; it is as if we were different species. They just don't get it.They seem unable to grasp that there are some things that no amount of finessing can make acceptable.

This life-long Conservative voter has had to come to terms with the redefinition of conservative values with the painful, though simple, decision: I'm now a former Conservative voter.

Perhaps David Cameron has calculated that there is some electoral advantage to him from imposing this policy. He's going to have to gain an awful lot of votes from former Labour and Liberal Democrat voters to make up for all the existing votes he must lose.

It's not grass roots conservatives everyhere who are off the track today. We represnt the salt of the earth. By that I mean the average person with common sense who treasure our traditional values, who are patriotic and love their country they live in, and cherish Western Civilizion. It's the establishment conservatives in their pinned stripped suits who have abandoned OUR priciples and have stabbed their constituents in the back to keep power. I have a stong hunch they were never conservatives in the first place. How could they be? They are children of the children of the 60's. This is an astonishing phonenomenon and is happening simultaneously on both side of the Gulf Stream and in the rest of the English speaking diaspora today. Have conservative leaders caught some sort of self hating virus which the left sprinkled as a powder into their gin and tonics at their clubs and is now eating away at their conservative value systems?

Both versions mean the loudest complaints coming from the smallest group get the most attention.

Gay marriage is an issue for less than 1.5% of the population and probably less than 25% of that 1 % if the truth were known.

What a tragedy that your great country is torn apart by this bizarre concept.

In my country the matter was been settled for many states in the last election by the majority voting "yes" on Gay marriage. It's legal by the vote of the majority so it's the law and we have to accept it. I can live with that as loathsum as the concept is. In other states the law makers and courts forced it upon the people. We are in the midst of an enormous conundrum.

What a mess!

When will Muslims claim discrimination and demand polygany and won't they have a ligitimate "right" based on Gay marriage being made legal? If Gays can be "married" why not polygamy for Muslims, Mormons, and others who allow it as part of their religious traditions?

Don't you think that by adopting gay requests as and when they are announced, we are well on our way to degeneracy. Before you answer, believe this, the Inspector does not in any way criticise you for your pound of dope. He is talking of REAL degeneracy...

Thank you, your grace for your efforts and illuminating opinion in all things religio-political. I draw great benefit from yours and others considered words.

As a Father of three I am greatly worried for my children. No mention has been made at all in this whole issue. My seven month old boy will be school age before I know it and, if the US is anything to go by, will very well be taught in school that homosexual relations are normal. The thought sickens and disgusts me. Not only do my own upbringing and Christian beliefs feed this reaction but something deeper, which I can only explain as guttural. The desire to fight and protect my young from those that present gay marriage as normal is producing some rather extreme feelings of anger, disgust and disbelief. Is this wrong? Or 'should' we just accept it?

Your Grace, or other correspondents, does anyone know anything about the events and facts posted by Julia Gasper on His Grace's blog a couple of days ago given again below ? Regrettably Julia omitted to give us any of the relevant links.

Julia Gasper said...@ 10 December 2012 13:52

It;s not just the BBC that is biassed. In a few days the EU is going to hear and probably pass legislation making any argument on the conservative and Christian side of these moral issues illegal. As you know, the socialists, liberals and Greens have in pastweeks blocked the nomination of a Roman Catholic, Dr Tony Borg, as anEU commissioner, because he is a Christian. They assert that this isagainst "European values". Their idea of European values is theextreme of LGBT craziness.You can read a copy of FWI’s letter to key committee chairmen on the Borg nomination

here.Now the same activists are pushing through new legislation designed toimpose a strait-jacket on all the nations of the EU, and remove moralfreedom.Essentially, it is a programme for the persecutionof Christians in particular, and of all those who refuse to approve,participate in and support the amoral anti-family sexual agenda.

Radical EU Resolution Must be Stopped!

No matter where you live, we are urging you to help us stop theEuropean Parliament (EP) from advancing a dangerous measure disguised as a resolution on fundamental rights.

This motion will be debated Tuesday evening and voted on by all EP Members on Wednesday morning. As noted below, we have a simple,one-clickmethod to send a quick email to 52 key leaders in the EuropeanParliament. PLEASE DO IT NOW. PLEASE SHARE THIS WIDELY. SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS and PROTEST TO YOUR MEPs

The following are specific serious problems with the resolution:

* Requires Member States to criminalize and characterize opinions against homosexuality as “hate speech” and calls for an expansion of criminal offences to include expressions based on“homophobic or transphobic intent.” This would mean that people such as Adrian Smith (who recently got demoted for his job by saying on Facebook that he disagreed with same-sex marriage) could from next Wednesday be sent to PRISON for his views.* Demands the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortions where not already legal. (Abortion is a competency of Member States, not European Union (EU) law, and thus not the European Parliament.

* Encourages "liberalizing" laws regulating comprehensive sexuality education. ( Click here to see the serious problems with this kind of education.)This means that children will be taught that they have a "right tosex" at any age, and subjected to the sort of material found on thewebsites of the Terrence Higgins Trust. If you thought this was onlyon hard-core porn sites, think again - it is now being pushed at our children as "sex-ed".

* Calls on Member States to protect “the freedom of those without a religion not to suffer discrimination as a result of excessive exemptions for religions from laws on equality andnon-discrimination.” IN OTHER WORDS SCRAP ANY PROTECTION FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.Act now or have it on your concscience for the rest of your life.

Thank you Naomi, I will note this. My four and six year old are already in the system and may escape before the educational system is further poisoned, as will happen and is happening in US as we speak.

http://www.amazon.com/King-Linda-Haan/dp/1582460612

see others also brought. How sick is it to subvert children at such a young age. What is happening? Distinctly un-conservative.

Watch out for Homosexual History Month which is the whole of February each and every year (with "educational materials" supplied by the Terrance Higgins Trust and Stonewall, God help us) and because Homosexual History Month is taught across the curriculum, parents have no right to withdraw their children from this teaching.

Cameron as leader of this Government has led us into very dangerous times indeed.

What is happening in our Country is a tragedy and it has been endorsed and encouraged by those who are supposed to lead us.Our youth are being brought up in a culture which cannot define 'right and wrong.Boundaries have been so blurred that truth is very difficult to find.This is part of a deliberate 'dumbing down' of our youth.The repercussions of the ineptitude of our leaders to discern moral judgements will be enormous and all of society will suffer for the actions of a very small minority who have led the Government'by the nose' into this situation.

Allan Brunskil. You come over as a good family chap. To research more into your justifiable horrors, google ‘Gay Agenda’. Have strong drink near you – you will need it.

In the UK we have the Terrence Higgins people. Aptly named after a promiscuous sodomite who died young of AIDS. They are just waiting to spread the new gospel in schools, and wish to teach your children the joys of gay sex...

Part of the problem is that Christians and their churches want to protect the definition of marriage without, at the same time, honouring the estate of marriages and its purposes.

Sex between a man and woman;Within marriage;With one faithful partner for life; andFor love and the procreation and raising of children.

All terribly reasonable and the foundation of a happy and well functioning society.

Okay, people aren't perfect. We sin and sex takes place before marriage, some may *experiment* and people commit adultury. People use unnatural means and abortion to avoid 'unwanted' children.

We can, by the grace of God, see the error of their ways and seek God's forgiveness. However, these sins have become ingrained within our culture and are systemic.

Where were the Conservatives and christians in the Church of England and Parliament when contraception and abortion was supported? When divorce and remarriage was accepted?

Is the 'problem' really homosexual marriage? Didn't the traditional definition of marriage change more than a generation ago? Or, at least, it has become honoured in name only. Hasn't the Church and Conservatives colluded with this? And, really, isn't homosexual marriage the next logical step?

Naomi and Inspector. Thank you for your replies. I have briefly looked into matters regarding homosexual marriage and will explore your links further. It is only recently, in fact today after this announcement that I have somehow been motivated to even post on a blog. This issue of Gay marriage seems that it is not as clear cut as is made out to be. I wish only to protect my red line - my kids, and possibly their kids (hoping they are not gay themselves and want to have kids) from the misinformation and confusion resulting from this mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and associated practices.

The way this fundamental change appears to have been rushed through without the usual due care and consideration seems highly peculiar for Britain, a country which prides itself on fairness. The process seems distinctly un-British when it was stated that it will happen anyway. Were there not 620 000 registered citizens who petitioned to leave marriage as is as opposed to 64 000 who supported. Under what sort of contempt must the population be held where this fact is not accounted for or consideration is not made for this?

Surely there must be mechanisms in this great democracy that protect us from the whims of a particular government and ensure proper due course and accountability for law changes which affect all of society?

We are told by the government that opponents of gay marriage are outnumbered by supporters. But we now learn that multiple anonymous submissions to the 'consultation' were accepted from all parts of the globe, not just the UK.

I have just had a look at the Coalition for Marriage campaign and the 'Equal Marriage' campaign petitions, both of which required names, addresses and postcodes. C4M currently has 620,400 signatures while the Equal Marriage petition has just 63,756.

DanJ0: Yes, Jesus does know the mind of Naomi King, and Jesus knows that she is a sinner who is dependent on him alone for her salvation. Jesus knows her mind, my mind, and your mind. Naomi and I are quite relaxed about that. How about you?

Bless you Matt. Life may not be so comfortable for DanJO and his friends.

A Welsh MP has started a storm by claiming that most parents would not their child to be homosexual.

David Davies, who represents Monmouth, made his comments over the weekend.

The Christian Voice National Director spoke about the issue on Radio Leeds this morning.Stephen Green said today: ‘ Most parents want their children to have children themselves. They want to be grandparents. It is how Almighty God has designed us. But that is not all. Parents want the best for their children, and anyone who knows anything about the homosexual life would not wish its depravity and emptiness on anyone.Homosexuality is a Sexual Dead-End.

In his book The Sexual Dead-End, Stephen Green quoted a number of homosexuals who spoke about their lives.

A man called “Jeremy” wrote in the Evening Standard Magazine (08/01/88): ‘The gay is more visually aware than a hetero; he’ll see something in a shop that he wants, he’ll see others running around with it and instantly he’ll feel “I must have it!” … We’re talking about an almost psychopathic fashion-consciousness. At the end of the day it’s always a search – and this is what makes it irrational and hard to please – for true love. If I have a lovely home, I’ll impress someone who’ll adore me. If I get a new hairstyle, or a new car, or the cassette recorder, I’ll be loved as well. Much of gay consumerism boils down to a constant search for Mr. Right.’

Activist John Shiers, in a sad piece of writing, defended his involvement in what he describes as the “gay world” with poignant honesty: ‘I choose to use commercial gay facilities; I consent to the one-night stands; I also have a fairly satisfying and enjoyable social life quite independent of all this. Yet my choices are not “free”: I have needs which gnaw away under the surface and which gay bars, clubs and sex do provide temporary relief for. But it is temporary; the underlying issues remain and I have no idea how to begin to go about fully understanding them, let alone sorting them out in such a way as to give me a constant feeling of personal integration. (John Shiers in (ed Gay Left) “Homosexuality Power and Politics” Allison & Busby London 1980 p146)

Dodo: There have been more sick posts than those written by Naomi, I think it was more in the manner of clever wit than sick. But anyway, I do agree, that Jesus requires cooperation, although I would probably use the term obedience instead, but that is just splitting hairs.

I'm an atheist, it's all fine. If Jesus does actually exists then I hope you get your free ride because if you're wrong about that bit then I expect he's not going to be happy with people who deliberately run amok whilst using his name.

In my experience those testimonies above could have been made by hetrosexuals who have lost their way and are not exclusive to homosexuals. Indeed, I hear these these themes very often from *straight* people who lack a sense of self worth or meaning in their lives.

Danj0: Are you drunk? I have re-read your comment a few times, and cannot see your point. How am I, or anyone else in this discussion, running amok? Being an atheist is fine as long as there is no God. I believe that God is real, and you also allow that possibility in your comment, so you are grave risk my friend!

Naomi King: "Life may not be so comfortable for DanJO and his friends."

Naomi, most of my friends are heterosexual and even the gay ones have heterosexual parents. I notice you've quoted Stephen Green of Christian Voice too. Is he one of your heroes? He's an interesting man as I'm sure you know. A divorcee, actually.

Thank God for David Davies MP, who has spoken out what many are thinking. Three years ago, this forthright MP criticised the misogynist attitudes of Islam. He needs our support and our prayers.We should also pray that more churches would be moved to minister the healing power of the Lord Jesus to those struggling with same-sex attraction. No-one has to ‘stay homosexual’.

When a regular on the homosexual “scene” grows old, there becomes progressively less that “gay consumerism,” or fashion, can do to help him maintain his “sex appeal”:

‘As we grow older we continue to slide up the line between “young” and “old.” Most of us try desperately to look younger than we are. As we age, we resort to a whole array of hair pieces, contact lenses, sprays, sun lamps, oils and other artifices to look younger. We run after the latest fashion of the young consumer market hoping to find some magic fountain of youth. …

‘Older gays just aren’t happy with each other’s company generally …. Or if we are willing to share our time and lives with older homosexuals, we often draw a strict line between sex and company, preferring sex with young strangers (often anonymous) and camaraderie with others our own age. Couples are an exception.’ (Charley Shively in “Pink Triangles” edited Pam Mitchell, Alyson Publications Boston 1980 p77)

‘It was a sordid life. As you get older, anything good about homosexuality passes away and you are left with all of the bad things. You no longer are attractive and you cannot make contact. You have to pay for any sex you get. And then there is no involvement, there is no love. No friendship is involved; just a business transaction.’ ((Interview in Philpot “The Gay Theology” Logos 1977 p17)

All sexual sin leads to pain both to the perpetrators and the victims together with separation from God, however this narrative is the stark reality of the homosexual life, and no parent would want a child anywhere near it. We should pray that parents will be alert to attempts through school education to groom their children for homosexuality.

Danj0: Allah does exist, Allah is arabic for "The God". I guess what you mean to say is that if Muhammad's teachings on God are correct then I am in trouble. Well I will take that risk, as Muhammad never claimed to be God, while Jesus Christ did, so I know which one I will follow.

Matt, if you want to suddenly switch to Arabic for some reason and call your god Allah then that's fine by me but I'm sure we both know what I mean by Allah and if it turns out to be the god then you're in trouble as well as I am. Personally, I don't think your god or their god or any theistic god we're likely to dream up exists.

It's true Arab Muslims do call their pagan moon god of Medina "Allah". Christian Arabs (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) were calling the God Of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Allah (Father), almost 600 years before the false prophet Mohammed was born to a pagan mother in the Arabian Peninsula in the late 500's AD.

Christians calling God "Allah" in Arabic trumps Islam stealing the name for their pagan moon god by almost 600 years.

It's impossible to debate with a militant angry Gay atheist. Atheism denies God and Gays deny God's role for the sexes when He said in Genesis 9:1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Atheism denies human life has a purpose while radical Gays deny the biological roles of their physical bodies as a male or female was designed by nature to reproduce.

What a miserable combination and a hopeless way to face life. They need our prayers.

This whole Gay marriage debate is becoming a crashing bore. The topic of homosexual clergy and Gay "marriage" is amusing for me because most of us realize homosexuality among priests or ministers is almost considered an occupational hazard.

In you, Lord, I have taken refuge; let me never be put to shame; deliver me in your righteousness.

Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. Keep me free from the trap that is set for me, for you are my refuge. Into your hands I commit my spirit; deliver me, Lord, my faithful God.

I hate those who cling to worthless idols; as for me, I trust in the Lord. I will be glad and rejoice in your love, for you saw my affliction and knew the anguish of my soul. You have not given me into the hands of the enemy but have set my feet in a spacious place.

How abundant are the good things that you have stored up for those who fear you, that you bestow in the sight of all, on those who take refuge in you.

In the shelter of your presence you hide them from all human intrigues; you keep them safe in your dwelling from accusing tongues.

Love the Lord, all his faithful people! The Lord preserves those who are true to him, but the proud he pays back in full. Be strong and take heart, all you who hope in the Lord.

I wasn't debating anything there. That stream of, well, stuff needed a response, even if it was just mild sarcasm, and I thought the consciences of one or two people needed prodding.

Anyway, back to Maria Mlller. I have to say that the presentation of this is turning into a bit of a pig ear now. It looks to me like the government has decided it will just try to ram it onto the books and then tinker with some of the detail later. I suppose, pragmatically, that might actually be better even if it looks a bit slapdash now.

At a first glance, I'd say that the CofE exemption is more to do with the established church relationship and the right to marry in a parish thing. I bet that will get tidied up at a later date. The adultery and consummation thing needs sorting out too.

All that said, I still think this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup and that afterwards most people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Most people won't notice any difference, I'm sure. Going back to my first wry comment, it might even do the churches a favour, allowng them to agonize about something different for a change.

Storm in a teacup, DanJo? I think not! This is just the beginning. Just wait till the people find out that they've been had, and will be living under the totalitarian rainbow boot.

David Cameron must be feeling a bit like Frankenstein right now. He seems to have affronted just about everybody with this monster he has created. He will find that it is insatiable. Nothing will ever be enough for it.

No matter where you live, we are urging you to help us stop the European Parliament (EP) from advancing a dangerous measure disguised as a resolution on fundamental rights. This motion will be debated Tuesday evening and voted on by all EP Members on Wednesday morning. As noted below, we have a simple, one-click method to send a quick email to 52 key leaders in the European Parliament.The following are specific serious problems with the resolution:Encourages Member States to criminalize and characterize opinions against homosexuality as “hate speech” and calls for an inappropriate expansion of criminal offences to include expressions based on “homophobic or transphobic intent.”Promotes the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortions where not already legal. (Abortion is a competency of Member States, not European Union (EU) law, and thus not the European Parliament.Encourages liberalizing laws regulating comprehensive sexuality education. (Click here to see the serious problems with this kind of education.)Calls on Member States to protect “the freedom of those without a religion not to suffer discrimination as a result of excessive exemptions for religions from laws on equality and non-discrimination.”Can you guess which organizations helped draft the content of the proposed resolution?They are many of the same activist non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that recently bashed Mr. Borg’s nomination as EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner, falsely claiming that his personal and religious beliefs concerning the family, homosexuality, marriage and abortion did not conform to “European values.” You can read a copy of FWI’s letter to key committee chairmen on the Borg nomination here.The NGOs that want to radicalize European values through this proposed resolution include:The European Humanist Federation, the LGBT lobby (International Lesbian and Gay Association, or ILGA for Europe), Social Platform (an umbrella organization of activist NGOs), and International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).Many of these NGOs advocate the same radical sexual rights agenda at the United Nations level, and we cannot allow them to advance their agenda in a large region such as the EU.Now for the kicker: The proposed resolution also “Calls for the revision of the procedural rules of the CJEU and General Court in order to facilitate third-party interventions, by human rights NGOs in particular.”If these rules were modified per the resolution, it would expose the independent judicial system in the EU that defines human rights to political pressure by NGOs to redefine and radically expand them.Many of the NGOs that drafted the resolution and that would likely intervene in judicial cases receive significant funds from the European Commission, creating a serious separation of powers problem. In fact, the resolution also calls for a “permanent scoreboard on justice.”Time is short. Many leaders of the EU are sensitive to world public opinion. We urge you to email the suggested message attached below to the 52 key leaders of the EP with just the click of your mouse. By doing so, you are sending the email pasted below.Please take a few minutes to make your voice heard on these dangerous social policies being considered by the European Parliament. If they are adopted, they will set a dangerous precedent that other governments will be pressured to follow.Sincerely,

Email opposing EP motion for a proposedresolution on fundamental rightsDear Party Leader,We respectfully request that you and your party members vote against the Motion for a European Parliament Resolution on the Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union (2010-2011), tabled as Text A7-0383/2012 by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The proposed resolution would encourage Member States to redefine and radically expand fundamental human rights as defined in European law.As Amendment 4 to the motion submitted by the PPE Group recognizes, “the EU has become a symbol of freedom, fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law for millions of people outside the Union.” However, those of us outside of the Union are concerned with recent social developments within the EU, and the excessive influence that some NGOs have on your legal institutions.The NGOs who want to radicalize European values through this proposed resolution, the contents of which they helped draft, include the European Humanist Federation, International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA for Europe), Social Platform, and International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Many of these NGOs also promote a radical sexual rights agenda at the United Nations. In the resolution, they “urge the Commission and Council to improve cooperation with international organizations dealing with fundamental rights,” including the parent organizations or affiliates of these NGOs.The proposed resolution would encourage Member States to remove restrictions on sexuality education; criminalize and characterize opinions against homosexuality as “hate speech”; and legalize same-sex marriage and abortions (where not already done by Member States). These provisions raise the following problems:Sexuality education, as defined by the NGOs and others who push the program at the UN, sexualizes and strips children of their innocence. This program contradicts the prior fundamental right of parents “to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” Universal Declaration, Article 26(3) (1948).Abortion is a competency of Member States, not European Union (EU) law, and thus the EU Parliament should not interfere in the matter through the proposed resolution.In addition to calling for an inappropriate expansion of criminal offences to include expressions based on “homophobic or transphobic intent,” the proposed resolution calls on Member States to protect “the freedom of those without a religion not to suffer discrimination as a result of excessive exemptions for religions from laws on equality and non-discrimination.” If Member States followed such guidance, they could easily undermine the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and religion guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.The proposed resolution also raises significant separation of powers concerns, as it calls on the EU judiciary that defines human rights “to facilitate third-party interventions, by human rights NGOs in particular.” Excessive intervention in judicial proceedings by human rights NGOs such as the ones that helped draft this provision, some of which are heavily funded by the EC, undermines the independence of the EU judiciary. In fact, the proposed resolution also calls for a “permanent scoreboard on justice.”Thank you for your attention on this matter.

This is perhaps the most serious message I have heard to date about the LGBT /gay agenda’s determination to dominate not just Britain, or Europe but the world.

All safeguards that the British Government, since Tony Blair came to power in 1997 and up till now, have been written into the flood of LGBT legislation poured onto a nation that no longer knows its right hand from its left, assuring us that no-one will be forced to embrace homosexuality and abortion as a way of life, will prove to have been profoundly worthless – unless we act and now!

Please read the message here and let it sink in. But essentially, it means our freedom to live quiet and peaceful lives, raising our families for the next generations will cease within a very short time. Persecution which occurs in Marxist and Islamic countries, against Christians in particular, will be as nothing compared to the Tsunami headed our way.

“And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time” - Winston Churchill 1938

"...on the Tory backbenches, the anger was apparent. Matthew Offord, MP for Hendon, compared same-sex marriage to polygamy for a second day running. Richard Drax, MP for South Dorset, said that the Government was guilty of 'arrogance and intolerance' over the planned changes, while Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, said that the consultation process had been 'reminiscent of a Liberian presidential election'." - The Times (£)

"Away from the public eye, the situation is even more poisonous. 'The atmosphere in the tea-room is terrible, quite grim. Colleagues are at each other’s throats,' says a young Tory MP who favours gay marriage but wonders about the wisdom of the Government staking so much on forcing through the measure." - Iain Martin, Daily Telegraph

"Beneath Cameron's drive for same-sex marriage lies disdain for his own MPs"

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/

From Conservative Home - The Tory Diary

By Paul GoodmanFollow Paul on Twitter.

When I left the Commons in 2010, the local Association activists were more or less the same people as when I entered it in 2001 - though, of course, older. Others had died during that decade or so, like other, less active members. Others still failed to renew their membership, or moved away from the High Wycombe area. But they were essentially the same people at the end as at the start: decent, hard-working, public-spirited, not always well-off, seldom movers and shakers (unlike some of the people I worked with at Westminster, though this wasn't necessarily to their disadvantage), distinguishable from their neighbours largely by being politically active - and, by the end of my time as the local MP, a bit more set in their ways, as older people tend to be.

As time like an ever-rolling stream bore those ten years away, I noticed a change in their attitude to the party leadership. They didn't exactly become more disenchanted - though this was so in some cases - but they definitely became more detached, as all the while around them election turnout stayed very low, public disenchantment with the political system grew, and party membership fell further. After David Cameron became leader in 2005, trying to report what he was doing became rather like trying to explain to an elderly couple what their grandson was up to. Imponderable words and phrases began to flow from my lips even more frequently than usual: "huskies...modernisation...inclusivity...hoodies".

At best, they would smile, benignly puzzled. At worst, they would complain about the conduct of the new, young leader for whom (in most cases) they had voted. But much of the time, they simply looked rather baffled, as older people presumably do when their grandchildren babble of Nintendo Wii's and DS's. Frankly, I found this a bit frustrating, all the more so when they stubbornly steered the conversation back to the meat, potatoes and two veg of Tory political discourse: the EU, immigration, crime and (in this case) Gordon Brown's destruction of pensions. These activists may have been unlike the sharp-suited pace-setters at Westminster, but they were more like many Tory MPs of my acquaintance than either would usually acknowledge.

If I was sometimes a bit impatient, hasn't Mr Cameron, from his more exalted position, been even more so? Consider, for example, the A-list and his attempt to abolish the '22. Some Conservative backbenchers would go further, complaining of double standards over expenses trangressions, and a hasty stampede into coalition: the Prime Minister, they complain, would rather work with Nick Clegg than with them. Mr Cameron is too urbane - one might say too well-mannered - to tell his members that they're seen as "the Nasty Party", but when he complained of them "banging on about Europe", his exasperation showed through. None the less, he has avoided seeking a single "Clause Four" moment with which to confront them.

Until now. For there can be no other explanation for his decision to seek to rush a bill on same- sex marriage through the Commons, against the wishes of a majority of his own MPs (let no-one claim that there will be one without his backing), splitting them from top to bottom in the process - and all without a manifesto or Coalition Agreement or Queen's Speech mention. As I say, Mr Cameron has to date avoided a single big Clause Four-type gesture, preferring a series of smaller ones. Some of them led nowhere, such as the ruling-out of expansion at Heathrow. Others helped take the party out of opposition, such as George Osborne's rejection of tax cuts without proper spending control, and the Prime Minister's own personal commitment to the NHS.

That's the point about modernisation: every leader needs to do it continuously, taking his supporters with him as he does so and gathering new ones along the way - the route favoured by John Howard and George W Bush and Stephen Harper and every successful modern centre-right leader in the Anglosphere. What none of these winners did was to pick a scrap with his own party, over an issue about which many on the other side of the argument feel very deeply, for no immediate electoral benefit. The sum of the polling on same-sex marriage shows the following: there is a majority or plurality of support for it; a sizeable minority is opposed; if introduced, few voters will switch either way, and above all, few want it to take up too much Government time.

In the long run, the measure will probably be helpful to the party, since older voters mostly oppose same-sex marriage, and younger ones mainly support it. But in the short-term, it will undoubtedly be harmful, since those younger voters won't switch their votes to Mr Cameron as a result in 2015, but some older partyactivists (as opposed to voters) will decamp - perhaps to UKIP, which is manoevering to exploit the Prime Minister's mistake, more likely to nowhere. If I was sometimes impatient locally and Mr Cameron more widely, the more fool both of us, especially him. The ground war matters in general elections. The union presence on the ground helped Labour punch above its weight two years ago.

Without those activists to stand for council elections, campaign on local issues, knock on doors, phone voters and be in all the places that a candidate can't, the party can kiss goodbye in 2015 to some of the seats it now holds. Seen in this light, the Prime Minister's backing of same sex marriage begins to look like the most unselfish political act he has ever taken, since the benefits to his party will come after he, in all likelihood, has ceased to lead it. Since politicians aren't usually selfless, his conduct is so peculiar as almost to defy explanation. "He's doing it because he thinks it will demonstrate strong leadership," one shrewd observer told me. But is this correct, especially if the Lords throws a Bill out? Is such an effect even measurable?

"He's doing it because he thinks it's right," said a supporter. Presumably so. But I can't help thinking that there's more to it. The parade of Cabinet supporters last weekend reminded me of Michael Portillo's leadership campaign in 2001, with its drum-roll of high-level backers. Team Portillo aimed to start a unstoppable bandwagon. Instead, the vehicle crashed and the party got Iain Duncan-Smith. Mr Portillo has departed but his spirit lives on. It sees support for same-sex marriage as a touchstone of social acceptability, and those activists and MPs as an embarrassment - elderly relatives who have escaped the granny annexe and crashed the drinks party. Like King Lear, these foolish, fond older men and women must be cast out if necessary.

Stonewall's Ben Summerskill says that gay people vote "increasingly in line with the rest of the population". But a mere 16 per cent of ethnic minority voters backed the Tories in 2010. Seen in this light, isn't Downing Street's stress on same-sex marriage a bit disproportionate? Why has the Chancellor, so pointed on the subject of gay rights, nothing to say about his party's difficulty with ethnic minority voters? I wonder if Team Cameron is simply more familiar with gay people (if drawn from a similar social background, anyway) than with ethnic minorities. Socially and culturally, it varies little - in class and age terms, at any rate. There is no senior, pre-2001 MP to advise - to remind the Heir to Portillo that disdain for one's colleagues is scarcely less corrosive than contempt.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 in Faith, Family and relationships, Race and multiculturalism, Team Cameron | Permalink

Today the government has announced it's intention to change the definition of water.

Although it has been long accepted, for time immemorial, across all creeds & cultures that water is the bonding of two distinct particles - Hydrogen & Oxygen - it is also known that oxygen & hydrogen atoms are also capable of bonding with themselves. Furthermore, the electro-magnetic forces which unite hydrogen & oxygen together are identical to the ones which unite the hydrogen & oxygen atoms to themselves. At certain temperatures they even all look the same.

Given these facts it has been decided to extend the definition of water to include H2 & O2 as well as H20.

Recent opinion polls have shown that increasing numbers of people – especially young people - accept that liquid H20, O2 & H2 could probably all be called water, though a significant proportion (between 40%-60% depending on how the question is phrased) are strongly opposed to the idea. Opponents claim this move could eventually lead to all liquids being called water – an idea dismissed as scaremongering by equal-water advocates. Opponents also claim that traditional water’s unique life-sustaining & cleansing properties mean that water should remain special, distinct & given special protection. Equal-water advocates point out that even traditional water is sometimes stagnant & dirty, and that living things can also be kept alive in H2 & O2 environments if absolutely necessary. Equal-water opponents point out that H2 & O2 already have unique names of their own and almost all the same legal rights as traditional water. Advocates of change say that giving traditional water distinct recognition makes them feel like 2nd class compounds.

The government – despite not telling anyone of it’s plans at the election, and the public at large not actually requesting the change – announced that it will be changing the definition of water. As part of the democratic process the government has given people the opportunity to express their views on the change. The public responding in unprecedented numbers – more than on any other public consultation exercise – and they overwhelmingly expressed serious concerns about the plans. The government has said that they have listened to the public and are going ahead as they said they would do, but making even more changes (despite previous assurances that they wouldn't). However in a last minute concession to the bigoted gasophobes at the National Water Board, they have said that it will be illegal for them to make the new “same particle water” to protect them from malicious litigation.

Other local water boards will be free to manufacture “same particle water” if they choose to, but Allah help them if they don’t.

In other parts of the world where equal-water legislation is already enacted, Hydrogen & Oxygen are now simply referred to as element 1 & element 2.

Flossie: "Storm in a teacup, DanJo? I think not! This is just thebeginning. Just wait till the people find out that they've beenhad, and will be living under the totalitarian rainbow boot."

Totalitarian rainbow boots? They're Christian Louboutins actually! Seriously, don't you think you're being a bit, well, overly dramatic there? If you want something proper to worry about then the draft Communications Bill is more in that ballpark and may well take us a bit further towards a totalitarian State.

The communications bill is indeed another odious piece of legislation and I have already been in touch with my MP about it.

However, bad social policy is the most damaging of all. Far more so than economics or education or welfare or any of the other things people get their knickers in a twist about.

Undermine the family and the foundations of society start to crumble. It affects education, crime, economics, welfare far more than anything else. It's no wonder that someone once said, "It'd be better to be drowned than cause one of these little ones harm".

SSM strikes a stake into the heart of the institution which is there PRIMARILY for the nurturing & socialisation of the next generation. Most totalitarian states do all they can to undermine the family & religion - as they are the only things that most people feel an affinity to stronger than the state, no matter how much you pay them.

I am puzzled by your political analysis, Your Grace. If the vehemence of posts here is anything to go by, Cameron is losing his "core vote". That is, if you believe your flock represent the core of the conservative party. Or one believes that this vehemence is universal. This is what makes me wonder...

I remember a time when people said that Tony Blair was too beholden to focus groups and insufficiently ideological. The same people then said that he was too driven by ideology over the Iraq war. They didn't see the inherent tension in those two opinions of the same man.

So, if Cameron (with plenty of focus group polling at his disposal) is genuinely losing the party over this, surely it will trigger a vote of confidence? The fact that he seems fairly confident that it won't suggests that he knows something about this that either you don't, or you do but you're not admitting. Or he has some ideological attachment to the issue which is at odds with the rest of your (and your flock's, and for what it's worth, my) analysis of the man's attachment to any ideology.

As to those who don't understand the need for the removal of the difference between civil partnership and marriage - there are people for whom separate but equal was a perfectly respectable political stasis in the civil rights movement in the US. What is of concern is the fact that the current iteration of the law as proposed this morning would further enshrine a continued distinction.

Finally to address the posters here who complain that this was not a manifesto commitment. I would be more persuaded by your complaints if you had made the same over the NHS reforms. That you haven't suggests that this is a convenient cover for your objections rather than a substantive matter.

I have not sought to suppress your right to disagree, have an opinion on, or expound those opinions, because I think that through rational debate, we will get there in the end. However, the Church does seek to shut down debate on the use of (what it contends for other purposes) are essentially community facilities for the purposes of recognising marriage. I'm afraid they can't have their cake and eat it - which comes back to your post some time ago about state aid to prop up church buildings.

As this issue progresses, I'm increasingly of the view that for the good of the Church and the State the two should be separated.

Rebel Saint - I agree that the family is core, but I just have a broader definition of family than you.

I think this is Tim Mongomerie's point which His Grace references. The drafting of gay and lesbian couples into the institution of marriage does not have to fundamentally alter its character.

As to those who will bring up child rearing and polygamy - these canards have been dealt with before. Please look back on earlier threads lest His Grace grow weary of us again!

The nature of the family has changed dramatically since the middle ages, when a large number of children was an insurance policy against child mortality and the act of "Christening" was something altogether different. The Church's belief system is supposed to have been immutable since then, but clearly isn't. Let's not pretend otherwise.

One can make a religious case against gay marriage (but one must accept that not everyone shares one's faith and therefore accept possible defeat on that basis) or one could make a legislative priority based case against same sex marriage (but that makes the fallacious assumption that the government can only do one thing at once).

The idea though that society will in some way fall apart if same sex couples' relationships are recognised in parity with heterosexual couples seems faintly amusing to me. I'm wholly in favour of a legal exclusion for churches wishing not to bless same sex unions - once this is codified (albeit in my view allowing those congregations who wish to do so to go ahead in the spirit of non- conformity for which the CoE is well known) I think you'll see that not a lot actually happens.

And if it does usher in the book of Revelation, aren't you supposed to welcome that anyway?

"Finally to address the posters here who complain that this was not a manifesto commitment. I would be more persuaded by your complaints if you had made the same over the NHS reforms. That you haven't suggests that this is a convenient cover for your objections rather than a substantive matter."

What a wonderfully patronising straw man you have there.

Here's the difference:

The government has no business in redefining marriage, unless there is an overwhelming majority of people (particularly married people) who recognise the new definition. That is the necessary mandate. Why should married people have their marriages redefined when we already have civil partnersips?

The government has every business in deciding how the NHS should be run. The fact that you would be more persuaded by people who would criticise the government for every manifesto u-turn is silly, but I will give it a go. I hereby complain about every manifesto u-turn that this government has made. I hope you are now suitably persuaded. You can sign here.

William - it's not a straw man - Naomi King brought it up at 12 December 2012 10:53 - so I'll leave you to take that up with her.

Has the government sought the consent of every NHS user to "redefine" the scope of the NHS? - Err no, it hasn't. In fact the manifesto expressly ruled out a "top down" reorganisation of the NHS.

I'd argue that the way that healthcare is commissioned has more impact on NHS users (and most especially the public purse) than allowing gay people to marry will have on your marriage. Please do try again though.

You've also focussed your displeasure on one small aspect of what I was saying (which incidentally has little to do with the original blog post) and have ignored my point about Cameron being a politician far more than he is a man of ideology, and therefore far less prone to principled stances than His Grace's original post would appear to imply.

Nigel Farage pledges to exploit party divisions over gay marriage plans warning the policy could 'rip apart' the Conservatives.

The Conservatives' turmoil over David Cameron's plans for gaymarriage has been compounded after Ukip pledged to exploit their divisions and go after the votes of Tories who abandon the party over the issue.

Amid signs that Conservative associations are losing members in their droves over what is being dubbed the prime minister's "clause IV moment", the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, warned that gay marriage could "rip apart" the Conservative party. He plans to put the issue at the heart of Ukip's campaign for the 2014 European parliamentary elections.

The government set out its plans on Tuesday to introduce gay marriage by 2014. It also tried to appease more than 100 Tory MPs planning to vote against the legislation by outlining a new "quadruple lock" that will make it illegal for gay marriage ceremonies to be conducted by the churches of England and Wales.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding the ceremonies.

The law will also state that no one can be prosecuted for preaching the belief that marriage can be between a man and a woman only.

In a statement to MPs, the culture secretary and equalities minister, Maria Miller, said: "Because the churches of England and Wales have explicitly stated that they do not wish to conduct same-sex marriage, the legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples. That provision recognises and protects the unique and established nature of those churches."

The concession from Miller failed to win over the Church of England and many Tory MPs, including four ministerial aides and the former cabinet minister Cheryl Gillan, who stood up to denounce the plans. Andrew Selous, parliamentary private secretary to the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, said: "This legislation will mark a significant moment as this country will be passing a law that is directly contrary to what Jesus said about marriage in Mark chapter 10 and Matthew chapter 19."

A meeting between Miller and backbench MPs after her statement broke up abruptly when she arrived late after conducting a series of television interviews.

Peter Bone, the MP for Wellingborough, told Miller the government had no mandate for the change because it had not appeared in the coalition agreement or the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos. He said: "You need a mandate for this. This whole exercise would have gone down well with Joseph Stalin."

Farage told the Guardian: "David Cameron's proposal has the potential to rip apart the traditional rural Tory vote. While Ukip wholly respects the rights of gay people to have civil partnerships, we feel the prime minister's proposals will present an affront to millions of people in this country for whom this will be the final straw.

The division between city and rural is absolutely huge. In my village pub in Kent they are just completely against."

Farage believes the gay marriage issue will serve his party well by highlighting the impact of the European court of human rights on Britain and by showing Ukip can rally support around a touchstone issue. "Ukip is not a one-issue party," he said. "But the gay marriage case is closely interwoven with the European court of human rights, as is so much of our life. Ukip will be seen to be a party campaigning not just about who governs Britain but about how we think that Britain should be governed."

The intervention by Farage came as Tory associations confirmed that members have resigned over the issue. The Arundel and South Downs Association, whose MP, Nick Herbert, is a leading supporter of the plans, confirmed there had been resignations. Councillor Gordon Marples, deputy chairman of the association, said: "Views are polarised. We have seen people resign on a point of principle. It is contentious. It is a big issue. It is not something I would have sought.

Naomi, whilst I admire your pluck (if not your views) on this issue, I can't help feeling that it would be better to direct people to a page rather than copy paste the whole text (which may leave the blog owner in breach of copyright - I'm not sure?).

Whilst the His Grace doesn't allow outward linking - you could always direct people to search for a headline.

It's impossible to trust most Conservative politicians today. Their silver tongued rhetoric sounds wonderful and they tell us what we want to hear. The simple truth is they are liars at best and traitors at worst. Their version of Conservative is with a capital "C". This means they want to conserve their capital "C" Conservative values which are bank accounts, stocks and bonds, and their cozy establishment way of life and do as they please morally on the side. We all support capitalism and the right of people to make money or inherit wealth and enjoy it but these hypocritical Conservative types usually care little or nothing for traditional morals or values but they know you and I do. They use our religion like liberals and the left use Gays or any other group they can bribe with their attention to get their votes. Conservative politicians today are at heart children of the late 60's who experimented with drugs and practiced promiscious sex but finally "grew up" realized their true values were about their pocket book and feeling good about themselves as champions of the family. religion and traditional values are nothing but props to them. How many of these Conservatives atcually attend church on a regular basis? That would be an interesting statistic to ponder.

Most people here who are Christians seem to be conservative with a lower case "c" and want to preserve their conservative religious values and traditions as well as their the way of life which they inherited from their ancestors. Too bad most of their favorite Conservative poliicans don't seem to share these values too.

These two versions of "conservatism" are clashing and it will not be pleasant but to see but in the end this battle atcually might be the catharsis conservatives (small "c") need to save traditional conservatism and start their own paties which reflect their values.

The ball is in your court conservatives with a small "c". What are you going to do with it?

Never trust the pinstriped suit Conservatives who pretend they are on your side and trust the ones wearing miters and carring a crozier with intense suspicion. They will betray you every time. Their goal is to keep their power. They are the establishment in the most corrupt sense of that word.

Power and self interest is the main force that guides most of humanity and this applies to Conservative politicians and establishment bishops.

When the politicians lied to get the British people into Europe to avoid a World War ever, ever happening again, they passed a spirit of cowardice throughout the land.

You never avoid a battle. For battles are always upon us. Creating battles in far off places, avoid the ones to be done at home.

This avoiding made the UK an easy target, from illegal immigrants demanding welfare rights, sexual intimidation of children called education, to policians openly fiddling their expenses. To be a good Citizen and Christian, was to be taught to be a pacifist.

This is a meme, a tool of dmoralization in the Art of War to conquer a nation.

See the unelected head, and you will see the defeated body of Europe. A population that only knows self-abuse, like the child that self-harms, acting perverted and screwed-over for the only sense of life they can have.

There is no pride or character or honest success. The oligarchs rule. We see this with our political and media class. Dumbing down and degrading every man, woman and child.

A sick society is where, like in Russian and China, only the sane are defined as Mentally Ill. For the rest, there's a Government Act to take care of it, and you'll pay for it.

Well said. Like China the former USSR also sent it's dissidents to mental hospitals and kept them drugged to shut them up.

Maybe what is wrong with our politicians today, including Conservative ones, is that a moderate percentage of them smoke hashish or pot on a regular basis. Perhaps some of these 60's leftovers, now posing as elected officials, in suits wearing their school ties still trip on LSD over a long weekends at their country estates. Which might explain why many of them seem to be in a daze most of the time.

Nothing would surprise me today.

Mention to our politicians that drug tests be made mandatory for them, as they are for other government employees and given at random several times a year, and you would see politicians panic. They would be seen jumping over each other to avoid such tests and running toward the tall grass as fast as they could and vanish.

One of the big problems Conservatives has is when they win elections they immediately start talking about compromise and getting along with the other party and working together, almost apologizing they even won in the first place. Conservatives who do this almost always end up compromising their core beliefs, if they ever had any in the first place, and forget why their conservative constituents voted for them in the first place.

When the left wins they get down to business and get tough. There is no room for compromise in their book of political etiqette, they steam roll over Consevatives without blinking an eye and seldom if ever mention "bipartisanship". Liberals know how to act like winners when they win. They become uncompromising.

Conservatives have to start playing the same type political game using the same vicious liberal and left wing strong arm tactics they use against us. No more nice Marquess of Queensbury type of political fighting rules for our side in the future.

The Homosexual is a conquered and defeated male, every woman smuggly knows this. Inverted in childhood into a new kingdom, no more than the intimidation and brainwashing of Communism onto a new generation of young believers, they will crush criticism and dissent to prove a new pride. A person defined by the use of their sexual organs is the lowest of beasts yet makes the highest of intellect for justification. Theirs is to change the world so conscience is outlawed. This child will burn every resource and cause every mischief, to this cause. It is unquenchable, for the soul of man either eats manna from heaven or consumes flesh on earth.

Hence, the new government bill to detect where every citizen goes on the internet. Not for themselves where Operation Ore had revealled who they are, but those who look for sanity.

Has it not been said 'to look at a woman lustfully is to have done the act'? Then why are children taught this is OK?Because those who are shifty, who cannot be still so that they can clearly be seen, seek to blind everyone.

Most Conservative leaders today along with their liberal and left wing counterparts are the children of the late 60's and the pop culture of that era and the following decades. They are economic Conservatives not traditional values conservatives. Few belong to or go to church and even though most are extremely well educated they have no concept or loyality to the meaning of Western Civilization or the survival of it's most important institutions the Catholic and Protestant Churches which is at stake today in the coming struggle with secularism and it's exact opposite Islam.

Conservative politicians have no loyality for your beliefs so why give them your allegiance? Don't waste your time voting for them either or giving them your support because they will betray you.

You have written many times the point: "Most Conservative leaders today along with their liberal and left wing counterparts are the children of the late 60's and the pop culture of that era and the following decades."

Benhind this, raised in an earlier era within public schools were teachers and political activists from the Fabian society with an ideology to support their anti-father, anti-family utopia. The entrepreneurial boss is their enemy and their envy. For natural talent is shunned, for these people used their whole brain's, whilst they, shuting down their conscience due to childhood trauma and resentment creates a continued sense of inadequacy, having only their pride of book-memorization and intellectual status to comfort them.

Peter Hitchens has ably walked into Christopher Hitchens' shoes and shown up these Will-Selves as mere puff balls.

Women burned their bras, but they never burned their wigs or threw away their jewellery and mud-packs.It was not about emancipation, but emasculation, for a man seduced by his girlfriend is a pig and will never ever, in her eyes, be the head of the house. Salt cannot regain it's saltiness. The king-maker is the king. Subversion becomes the norm, Critical Thinking the policy.

The populations are no more or less than '15-stone babies', adults who regress into childhood for comfort, crying out to legalize their favorite dopamine. They will drain the society to fuel their petulence and sexual fantasies.

The Church claimed to represent The Father just as fascism and Islam claimed to represent The Real Man, both using and oppressing women for their sense of strength, and are totally unfit to cope with the State's greater Love-4-All called Socialism.

The Father is within you. You and He are one. You are made in God's Image. You can do anything that's not stupid. You just have to see it for yourself. No one can teach you. Be still and know.

The lack of men and women in the West, is it's demise. Only femen and wombmales remain to fight over their portions of moma's pie.

Men are the target because of their natural connection to God with that inner voice of realization. Those who claim to know The Father and those who claim know The Mother are the frauds.

Love God who you can't see and do not hate your most unpleasant neighbour who you can see. There is no Saint and Kuffar. Only the sick among us.

You will stand where they cannot come. It will drive them mad trying to get you to submit to them and believe their pretend ways. They are the tattooed shape-shifters.

What should unite conservatives (small "C") and traditionalists in your country and mine and all the countries of the English speaking Bristish Isles diaspora as well as the indigenous peoples of Western Europe is borders, language, and culture.The loss of control of borders, which is already resulting in enormous cultural change, must be the immediate concern to all of Europeans and what this means for the future of Europe and Western Civilization.

For a nation to survive it must have control of it's destiny. To accomplish this is very simple: borders. language, and culture.

Traditionalism is an earlier radicalism. To live the Narrow Way is to neither lean to the left or right. The normal person way, meeting every challenge with flexibility and robustness.

Conservitism once leant itself to getting the UK out of the disasters Labour got the country into. Alas, Labour became Communism and Conservatives became Socialism. The goal posts shifted in the political class, and no one told the public.

The Catholic Church invented purgetory, the half way house between heaven and earth; NuLabour invented half-mindedness. When you are neither here nor there, you can truly claim you didn't do it when you did it, because you make yourself believe it.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)